3 ms·

Why even 20 though? Over what period of time do new works make most of their money? Over what period are production companies their payback over when deciding

Why even 20 though? Over what period of time do new works make most of their money? Over what period are production companies their payback over when deciding whether to invest in new works? I would suggest 5 years more than covers the above. To me the point of copyright, and the only way you can defend a state sponsored monopoly is to encourage creation of new works. If 5 years does that, any more just prevents derivative works, which are new creations in their own right. I'll grant that perpetual copyright is at least logically sound, but once you move away from that I don't see how you can make an argument for anything more than a minimal (enough to encourage creation) copyright term.

tptacek 4y ago
The most streamed TV IP on the whole Internet is The Office, whose first episode was shot 18 years ago. Seinfeld is closer to 35 years old. Houses of the Holy is 50 years old. So is Innervisions. There's A Riot Goin' On? 52. If you're trying to argue that success at the scale of Zeppelin or Seinfeld isn't somehow an incentive to creation, I mean, OK, but I guess I can rest my case, too.
- benj111 4y ago
  Define 'success'? Financial or something else? Yes people do want their work appreciated. I dispute the fact that anyone makes something today based on the financial worth of it 70 years down the road. Pointing out examples that just so happen to have lasted a long time doesn't mean they made it with that expectation. Further if that is provably the case, you still have to answer why they have a right to a state sponsored monopoly. And after all that my second suggestion is to have an annual increasing fee. So that only things that the owners are willing to actually make use of and pay to maintain stay copyrighted. That would seem to answer your objection
cool_dude85 4y ago
The classic answer to ultra-short copyright terms, and one that I think has some legitimacy, is that short really decreases the cost of just waiting you out. Let's say you write something brilliant, the next Harry Potter in financial terms. You shop it around but none of the big publishers will touch it, of course they're all owned by 2 or 3 companies. You self publish and it sells a couple hundred copies; 5 years later, bang, a major Hollywood blockbuster and media blitz. No need to pay you a cent.
- benj111 4y ago
  We've just had a thing with Sherlock Holmes. 2 films, the Sherlock and elementary series and now enola Holmes, despite Sherlock Holmes being near (in copyright terms) the end of copyright. So that would tend to disprove the thesis. Plus it suggests that having the author on board is valueless. Would you want to pay the author a fee and get them on board, or do you want them bad mouthing your new film? Further, any author that writes a book with any legitimate expectation that it's going to be made in to a film is probably successful enough already. JK Rowling probably wasn't expecting a film deal. She wrote the books without that expectation. I'm interested in a copyright that encourages and allows her to write books, not make her into a multimillionaire. If anything her success means she can write less books. Is that a good thing? I'm not in favour of keeping her in penury, but copyright should be about allowing them to work, not make it so they can stop.
  - astrange 4y ago
    > 2 films, the Sherlock and elementary series and now enola Holmes, despite Sherlock Holmes being near (in copyright terms) the end of copyright. He was already mostly public domain, with only a few stories still copyrighted. (And his estate claims that some character traits like "having emotions" are part of those stories.)
    - benj111 4y ago
      Some companies at least have paid for the rights recently though, which still argues against your stance. Then there's the seven percent solution which came out shortly before Sherlock Holmes went public domain.
      - astrange 4y ago
        The price doesn't matter much vs the annoyance of them suing you for putting emotions in your show.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

tptacek 4y ago

The most streamed TV IP on the whole Internet is The Office, whose first episode was shot 18 years ago. Seinfeld is closer to 35 years old. Houses of the Holy is 50 years old. So is Innervisions. There's A Riot Goin' On? 52. If you're trying to argue that success at the scale of Zeppelin or Seinfeld isn't somehow an incentive to creation, I mean, OK, but I guess I can rest my case, too.

benj111 4y ago
Define 'success'? Financial or something else? Yes people do want their work appreciated. I dispute the fact that anyone makes something today based on the financial worth of it 70 years down the road. Pointing out examples that just so happen to have lasted a long time doesn't mean they made it with that expectation. Further if that is provably the case, you still have to answer why they have a right to a state sponsored monopoly. And after all that my second suggestion is to have an annual increasing fee. So that only things that the owners are willing to actually make use of and pay to maintain stay copyrighted. That would seem to answer your objection

cool_dude85 4y ago

The classic answer to ultra-short copyright terms, and one that I think has some legitimacy, is that short really decreases the cost of just waiting you out. Let's say you write something brilliant, the next Harry Potter in financial terms. You shop it around but none of the big publishers will touch it, of course they're all owned by 2 or 3 companies. You self publish and it sells a couple hundred copies; 5 years later, bang, a major Hollywood blockbuster and media blitz. No need to pay you a cent.

benj111 4y ago
We've just had a thing with Sherlock Holmes. 2 films, the Sherlock and elementary series and now enola Holmes, despite Sherlock Holmes being near (in copyright terms) the end of copyright. So that would tend to disprove the thesis. Plus it suggests that having the author on board is valueless. Would you want to pay the author a fee and get them on board, or do you want them bad mouthing your new film? Further, any author that writes a book with any legitimate expectation that it's going to be made in to a film is probably successful enough already. JK Rowling probably wasn't expecting a film deal. She wrote the books without that expectation. I'm interested in a copyright that encourages and allows her to write books, not make her into a multimillionaire. If anything her success means she can write less books. Is that a good thing? I'm not in favour of keeping her in penury, but copyright should be about allowing them to work, not make it so they can stop.
- astrange 4y ago
  > 2 films, the Sherlock and elementary series and now enola Holmes, despite Sherlock Holmes being near (in copyright terms) the end of copyright. He was already mostly public domain, with only a few stories still copyrighted. (And his estate claims that some character traits like "having emotions" are part of those stories.)
  - benj111 4y ago
    Some companies at least have paid for the rights recently though, which still argues against your stance. Then there's the seven percent solution which came out shortly before Sherlock Holmes went public domain.
    - astrange 4y ago
      The price doesn't matter much vs the annoyance of them suing you for putting emotions in your show.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]